Clinical and radiographic benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion: a retrospective analysis.
Spine
cervicothoracic junction (CTJ)
posterior cervical fusion (PCF)
retrospective
Journal
Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)
ISSN: 2414-469X
Titre abrégé: J Spine Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101685460
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
02
09
2021
accepted:
09
07
2022
entrez:
26
10
2022
pubmed:
27
10
2022
medline:
27
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
C7 instrumentation during posterior cervicothoracic fusion can be challenging because it requires additional work of either placing side connectors to a single rod or placing two rods. Our clinical observations suggested that skipping instrumentation at C7 in a multi-level posterior cervicothoracic fusion will result in minimal intraoperative complications and decreased blood-loss while still maintaining sagittal balance parameters of cervical fusion. The objective of this study is to determine the clinical and radiographic outcomes of skipping C7 instrumentation compared to instrumenting the C7 vertebra in posterior cervicothoracic fusion. This is a retrospective chart review of 314 consecutive patients who underwent multilevel posterior cervical fusion (PCF) at our institution. Out of 314 patients, 19 were instrumented at C7 serving as the control group, while the remaining 295 patients were not. Evaluation of efficacy was based on intraoperative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), significant long-term complications, and radiographic evidence of fusion. Skipping the C7 level resulted in a significant reduction in EBL (488±576 Skipping instrumentation at C7 in a multilevel posterior cervicothoracic fusion is associated with significantly reduced operative blood loss without loss of radiographic correction. This study demonstrates the clinical benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion with maintenance of radiographic correction parameters.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
C7 instrumentation during posterior cervicothoracic fusion can be challenging because it requires additional work of either placing side connectors to a single rod or placing two rods. Our clinical observations suggested that skipping instrumentation at C7 in a multi-level posterior cervicothoracic fusion will result in minimal intraoperative complications and decreased blood-loss while still maintaining sagittal balance parameters of cervical fusion. The objective of this study is to determine the clinical and radiographic outcomes of skipping C7 instrumentation compared to instrumenting the C7 vertebra in posterior cervicothoracic fusion.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This is a retrospective chart review of 314 consecutive patients who underwent multilevel posterior cervical fusion (PCF) at our institution. Out of 314 patients, 19 were instrumented at C7 serving as the control group, while the remaining 295 patients were not. Evaluation of efficacy was based on intraoperative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), significant long-term complications, and radiographic evidence of fusion.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Skipping the C7 level resulted in a significant reduction in EBL (488±576
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Skipping instrumentation at C7 in a multilevel posterior cervicothoracic fusion is associated with significantly reduced operative blood loss without loss of radiographic correction. This study demonstrates the clinical benefits of skipping C7 instrumentation in posterior cervicothoracic fusion with maintenance of radiographic correction parameters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36285098
doi: 10.21037/jss-21-85
pii: jss-08-03-333
pmc: PMC9547698
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
333-342Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
2022 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jss.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jss-21-85/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Apr 1;27(7):736-47
pubmed: 11923667
World Neurosurg. 2017 Jul;103:419-423
pubmed: 28427976
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 15;38(4):E199-204
pubmed: 23169075
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jan 1;28(1):46-51
pubmed: 12544955
Neurosurgery. 1999 Apr;44(4):771-7; discussion 777-8
pubmed: 10201302
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Dec 15;33(26):2887-91
pubmed: 19092620
Spine J. 2015 Dec 1;15(12):2493-502
pubmed: 26343243
J Clin Neurosci. 2019 May;63:106-109
pubmed: 30711285
Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct;57(4):753-8; discussion 753-8
pubmed: 16239888
J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Oct;13(4):435-42
pubmed: 20887140
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Aug;19(2):141-59
pubmed: 23768023
Riv Patol Nerv Ment. 1965 Apr;86(2):196-204
pubmed: 5883595
World Neurosurg. 2018 May;113:e280-e295
pubmed: 29438790
World Neurosurg. 2019 Oct;130:e68-e73
pubmed: 31154099
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Nov 1;30(21):E636-40
pubmed: 16261101
Eur Spine J. 2012 Feb;21(2):328-34
pubmed: 22002474
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Apr 20;34(9):955-61; discussion 962-3
pubmed: 19352223
Brain. 1954;77(2):274-89
pubmed: 13190079
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Aug 15;20(16):1789-92
pubmed: 7502135
Neurosurgery. 1999 Apr;44(4):762-9; discussion 769-70
pubmed: 10201301
Global Spine J. 2016 Nov;6(7):650-659
pubmed: 27781184
Spine J. 2019 Oct;19(10):1714-1729
pubmed: 31075361
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Jul 15;22(14):1574-9
pubmed: 9253091
Eur Spine J. 2001 Oct;10(5):385-94
pubmed: 11718192
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Sep 15;19(18):2082-8
pubmed: 7825050
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2007 Apr;18(2):365-71
pubmed: 17556139
Lancet. 1965 May 22;1(7395):1089-92
pubmed: 14283765